Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Date
Msg-id 22855.1535135819@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I saw Tom's answer, and it will work as far as it goes. But maybe we 
> should look at doing that in configure instead of putting the onus on 
> all buildfarm owners? It already knows if it's using a GNU compiler, not 
> sure how ubiquitous the -ansi and -std=c99 flags are.

No, the only reason either of us are doing that is to force use of a
flag that's different from what configure would select by default
(which evidently is -std=gnu99 for gcc).  Most buildfarm owners have
no need to do anything.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: About those snprintf invocation macros
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)